__________________________________________________________________R59_____

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

FIRST INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PURVA PRADESH CS(OS) NO. 245 OF 2019

UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

___________________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF

Ms. TITLI TIKTIKI ………………………………………………………… PLAINTIFF

V.

ABC NEWS AND ORS. ……………………………………………………. DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………...II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………………......III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………………………. . IV

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………… V

ISSUES RAISED……… ………………………………………………………………………..VII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………………. VIII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………… XI

1. Whether the defendants have published and broadcasted news which contain defamatory
material against plaintiff………………………………………………………………XI
1.1 Whether the statement made by the defendant was false and defamatory in
nature……………………………………………………………………………………XI
1.2 Whether the statement made was an opinion or a comment………………XII
1.3 Whether the statement made was of public interest……………………….XIII
1.4 Whether the defendant had qualified privilege…………………………….XIV

2. Whether the defendants have infringed with the plaintiff’s privacy, which is a
guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution…………………………………. XV

2.1 whether the violation to the right to privacy contains a matter of public interest…XV

2
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preventive injunction restraining the defendants
from publishing any content related to the investigation of Mr. Totapuri’s death, or
otherwise containing any material which may portray the plaintiff in a bad light and
prejudice the ongoing investigations against her…………………………………………XVII

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation or damages, to be payable jointly or

severally by the defendants, for defaming the plaintiff, and if so to what
extent……………………………………………………………………………………XVIII

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………… XIX

3
 List of Abbreviations

& And
ALJR Australian Law Journal papers
ALL ER All England Law reports
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
Couldn’t. Could not
DE Delhi
Doesn’t Does not
It’ll It will
It’s It is
MANU Manupatra
MH Maharashtra
Mr. Mister
Ms. Miss
No. Number
Ors. others
S. Section
SCBA Supreme court bar association
UOI Union of India
v. Versus
VS. Versus
Would’ve would have
Wouldn’t would not

4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Books:

1)RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF TORTS ( LEXIS NEXIS 2015).

2) RAMASWAMY IYERS, THE LAW OF TORTS ( LEXIS NEXIS 2010).

Cases:

1)Murlidhar v. Narayandas AIR 1914 Sindh 85.

2)Surajmal B. Mehta v. B.C. Horniman, MANU/MH/0076/1917.
3) P.K. Niyogi and Ors. vs. Praveen Nishi MANU/CG/0578/2018.
4) Shashi Taroor V. Arnab Goswami. MANU/DE/4544/2017.
5) Jameel v. Wall street journal (2006) 4 ALL ER 1279.
6) Justice K.S Puttaswamy and Ors. Vs. Union of India ( UOI) and Ors.
MANU/SC/1044/2017.
7) Australian Broadcasting Cooperation v. O Neil, (2006) ALJR 671.
8) Subhash Chandra Agarwal V. Supreme Court of India and others, 2015 SCC online SC
1537.

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents , ABC News and Ors., have approached the Honorable court under article
226 of the Indian Constitution.

6
 STATEMENTS OF FACTS

_______________________________________________________________________

1.The petition concerns a defamation claim by the Petitioner, Ms Titlli Tiktiki against the
respondents, ABC news and Ors. The claim contains an issue of privacy violation under article
21 of constitution alongside civil defamation.
2.The Plaintiff , the solicitor general of Purvanchal, was envied by numerous lobbyists in the
supreme court for her progression in her career.In addition to this , there was a lot of speculation
about her personal relationship with her Irish physiotherapist. Mr Totapuri , her is a prime
suspect in the murder of Mr Totapuri, her former colleague.
3.Ms Tiktikki and Mr Totapuri were involved in a romantic relationship in their early years but
both of them left things on a rocky note. The relationship had turned bitter over the years. They
both had their respective issues with each other which they had suppressed for years. As a
result of this , one day they had a brawl in the Supreme court chamber blocks which was
witnessed by Mr. Gulmukh Gulati , the President of the SCBA(Supreme Court Bar
Association).
4. He was deeply upset on seeing this and hence arranged a meeting with both of them. He
invited them for dinner at a hotel. Both of the lawyers agreed to meet and eventually that night
, resolved their issues that they had with each other for years now. They parted ways cordially.
The next morning , Mr Totapuri’s dead body was found next to the swimming pool of the hotel.
5.This led to a nation-wide conjecture regarding the plaintiff’s involvement in the murder
resulting into Ms tiktikki stepping down from her position as the Solicitor general of
Purvanchal. The public raised fingers on her character and professional achievements.All the
news channels covered he issue in order to portray an unbiased side of the story. This led them
to take interviews of certain individuals on the matter. The comments made by the interviewees
were allegedly of defamatory nature in the eyes of Ms Tiktikki

7
6.. The media houses ,however, unaware of the consequences published a some footage of her
house. The idea behind behind it was to show the kind of extravagant lifestyle she was leading
despite being a public official.
7. This brought another wave of allegations by Ms Tiktikki against the news channels.
Ms Tiktikki filed a civil suit against all the leading media houses falling under the ambit of
civil defamation and violation of right to privacy under Article 21 of the constitution.

8
 ISSUES RAISED

The following issues were framed in the presence of the plaintiff and the defendants:

(a) Whether the defendants have published and broadcasted news which contain
defamatory material against the plaintiff.
(b) Whether the defendants have infringed with the plaintiff’s privacy, which is a
guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
(c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation or damages, to be payable jointly
or severally by the defendants, for defaming the plaintiff, and if so to what extent.
(d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preventive injunction restraining the defendants
from publishing any content related to the investigation of Mr. Totapuri’s death, or
otherwise containing any material which may portray the plaintiff in a bad light and
prejudice the ongoing investigations against her.
(e) Any other relief.

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

_________________________________________________________________________

1. Whether the defendants have published and broadcasted news which contain
defamatory material against the plaintiff.

1.1 Whether the statement made by the defendant was false and defamatory in nature
Truth is a complete defense to defamation. Statements of facts don’t substantially have to be
true. They are to be comprehended as a whole. The essence of the statements should be
justified. If a defendant can prove that the defamatory imputations of which the plaintiff
complains are substantially true, then the defence of justification is made out
Similarly, comments made herein can be justified as they weren’t made on the basis of made
up facts. They came from a place of apprehension.
1.2 Whether the statements were opinions or comments
Statements presented as opinions are not defamatory in nature. If the criticism is legitimate and
the individual who has spoken those words, truly believes in what they have said, then the
defamation can be ruled out. In this case, the comments published were evidently published as
opinions or inferences that the individuals drew from the news already making rounds. Along
with this, the repercussions of the publication were not known to the channels and hence it
became difficult to control or alter any statements made by the interviewees
1.3. Whether the statements were public interest
Statements made with the intention of imparting the knowledge of the issue to the masses, the
defamation clause can be, made out. If it is sincerely believed that issue is of public interest
and the public needs to have an unbiased opinion on the problem, the statements might not be
defamatory in nature., Likewise in this case, the publication was made thinking that the case
was important enough to reach the people .
1.4. Whether the defendants had qualified privilege.
Qualified privilege is when the person making that comment has a social or a moral duty to
do so. It’s a complete defense against defamation. It protects honest communication.
The news channels seemed to have qualified privilege in this scenario. All the comments that
were published were. Not driven by a malicious motive and the consequences were unknown.

10
2.Whether the defendants have infringed with the plaintiff’s privacy, which is a
guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2.1 Right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution.
However, it is not absolute. It is contradictory with another fundamental right, right to
freedom and expression. It becomes very important to find a balance between these two
rights. All then Secondly, privacy violation doesn’t extend to matters of public interest.
If the matter was important enough to reach the masses, then the violation can be avoided.
The whole idea behind the snippets was showing the in d of lifestyle that Ms Tiltikki was
leading. If it weren’t for the news channels, we wouldn’t have come face to face with this
part of her life.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preventive injunction restraining the defendants

from publishing any content related to the investigation of Mr. Totapuri’s death, or
otherwise containing any material which may portray the plaintiff in a bad light and
prejudice the ongoing investigations against her.
3.1 Whether there was any irreparable injury.
An injunction is an order from the court restraining the wrongful act committed by the
defendant. To Attain preventive injunction, the plaintiff has to prove the damage.
An injunction is only awarded when there is some irreparable loss. Stepping down from the
position of the Solicitor general of India was her take and final call. There was no professional
pressure to resign from the position.
3.2 Whether there was some other relief available to her.
Preventive injunction is only provided when no other relief is available to the plaintiff. Hence
if other damages are available to the aggrieved party. In this scenario Ms Tiktikki is seeking
multiple reliefs which is in contradiction to the principle stated under preventive injunction.
Hence her suit doesn’t necessarily remain.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation or damages, to be payable jointly

or severally by the defendants, for defaming the plaintiff, and if so to what extent.
In case of a joint case, the harm inflicted by one party cannot be imputed on other party if it is
driven by malice. Secondly the damages provided should be reasonable if defamation is in
fact proved.

11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

__________________________________________________________________________

1. Whether the defendants have published and broadcasted news which contain
defamatory material against plaintiff.

1.1 Whether the statement made by the defendant was false and defamatory in nature.

Defamation of a person is taken to be false until it is proven to be true. Further if a man has
stated that which is false and defamatory, malice is also assumed 1.
However, it becomes necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the statements made were
malicious.
“ Mere exaggeration or even gross exaggeration doesn’t make a comment unfair. Where in a
newspaper report, the main aspersion of the accused against the complainant is true, the fact
that there is some exaggeration or departure from the strict truth doesn’t deprive the accused
of the protection provided in the Exception 3 to S. 499 Indian Penal code. ” 2

Statement of facts need only be substantially correct and need not be microscopely or
photographically true ;nor can the plaintiff in the civil suit or the prosecutor in a criminal
Case, fasten himself on the inaccuracy in the detail, unless that detail itself is such as to make
substantial difference to the case.3

As stated in the above statements, the comments were not categorically made carelessly. It
wasn’t an absurd and an arbitrary conclusion based on made up facts. Ms Tiktikki was the

1
RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF TORTS 292 (26 TH ed. 2015) [ hereinafter “RATANLAL”]
2
Murlidhar v. Narayandas ,AIR 1914 SINDH 85.
3
Surajmal B. Mehta v. B.C. Horniman, MANU/MH/0076/191

12
prime suspect in the case of the deceased Mr totapuri. Inferences and conclusions were drawn
on the basis of all the factors pointing to her culpability in the case.

While a journalist is bound to comment on public questions with care, reason and judgment,
he is not necessarily deprived of his privilege merely because there are slight unimportant
deviations from absolute accuracy of statement, where those deviations do not affect the
general fairness of the comment. The articles must be considered rather in their entirety than
by separate insistence on isolated passages, and the Court must decide what impression would
be produced on the mind of an unprejudiced reader, who knowing nothing of the matter
beforehand, read the article straight through.4
In the present case , the essence of the statements matters the most. The statements published
by the news channels were covered for displaying the matter from a neutral point of view. The
statements covered by the tv channels also contained comments from both the perspectives of
the matter.

1.2 Whether the statement made was an opinion or a comment.

A fair and a bona fide comment made concerning public interest is no libel. 5 The statement
made is not defamatory in nature if it is an opinion or a comment. It must be an expression of
opinion rather than assertion of fact.
The criticism made should be legitimate. The individual must believe in the statement made
and should be vehemently of that opinion.
Every citizen has a right to criticize an inefficient or corrupt govt without fear of civil as well
as criminal prosecution. This absolute privilege is founded on a principal that it is advantageous
for a public interest that the citizen should not be in any way fettered in his statements and
where the public service or due administration of justice is involved he shall have the right to
speak his mind freely
In the above case, the comments published by the channels were merely comments or opinions.
During each interview, the channels made sure to include phrases like “do you think” “ what
is your opinion” which clearly shows AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COOPERATION V. O NEIL,
(2006) ALJR 671 their apprehension towards the issue. In addition to this, the consequences of

4
P.K. Niyogi and Ors. vs. Praveen Nishi,MANU/CG/0578/2018
5
RATANLAL supra note 1 ,at 293

13
the publication were unknown to them as it was a live broadcast36. Having said that, due to the
nature of the broadcast it became very difficult to have control over the interviewees’ words.

1.1 Whether the Statements were of the public interest.

If the statements published have been done so in public interest; it doesn’t not fall under the
category of defamation. Comments made with the belief that the matter is of utter importance
to the masses, it cannot be called defamation irrespective of the absurdity of the comment.
Often referred to as “responsible journalism” is a complete defense to defamation where the
protection extends to political matters or matters of public interest 7.

In the present case, we can rightfully infer that the issue covered by the news channels was in
fact believed to be a matter of public concern. There was no malicious intent behind the
publication of the comment. There was just the imputation of portraying an unbiased opinion
for the public who can; in the end draw conclusions after listening to both the sides of the story.
The general public had the right to the knowledge of the matter without concealing any fact of
the story.
In a free democratic Society “those who hold office in government and who are responsible for
public administration must always be open to criticism” 8
Since Ms Tiktikki was the solicitor general of the state which is an immensely prestigious
position ; there is certainly a duty on her part to uphold the integrity and the prestige of her post
and paradoxically of the country.

1.2 Whether the defendant had qualified privilege

Privilege means that a person stands in such relation go facts of the case that he is justified in
saying or writing what would be slanderous or libelous in any one else. The defense of privilege
is both common convenience and welfare of the society.9

6
Shashi Taroor V. Arnab Goswami. MANU/DE/4544/2017
7
Jameel v. Wall street journal (2006) 4 ALL ER 1279
8
Ratanlal supra note 2, at 277
9
Ratanlal supra note 3,at 297

14
A statement is said to have qualified privilege when no action lies for it even though it is false
and defamatory, unless the plaintiff proves express malice.10

Qualified privilege is when the person making the statement has a legal, more and a social duty
in doing so. It is in the interests of society that people can communicate ate frankly without
being sue for defamation. The defense of qualified privilege protects honest communication in
such situations.

Government and political matters are fall in the ambit of public discussion and thus is covered
under the defense of qualified privilege. To be able to obtain the usage of this defense, it must
be proved that the publication was not driven by malice.

In addition to this, the party making or publishing the statement must be subject to a duty to
make the statement and the statement must be made to a party bearing a corresponding interest
in receiving the information. In relation to this , the defendants seem to have attained qualified
privilege due to the fact that it was the duty of the channels to cite the public matter in such a
way so as to show a clear picture of the issue to the masses. The publication was not riven by
any malice or wrong intent. The communication was honestly displayed to the public.

10
Ratanlal supra Note 4,at 306

15
2. Whether the plaintiff’s privacy was violated

2.1Whether the privacy violation prevalent in this case extends to public officials

“Right to privacy” is a part of the fundamental right of the citizens under part III of the
constitution. However, it is not an absolute right and is subject to certain reasonable restrictions
which the state is entitled to impose on the basis of social , moral and compelling
Public interest in accordance with law 11
Restrictions of the right to privacy may be justifiable in the following circumstances subject to
the principle of proportionality:
(a) Other fundamental rights: The right to privacy must be considered in relation to its function
in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights.
(b) Public interest.
When the courts identify an infringement of a person's Article 8 rights, and in particular in the
context of his freedom to conduct his sex life and personal relationships as he wishes, it is right
to afford a remedy and to vindicate that right. The only permitted exception is where there is a
countervailing public interest which in the particular circumstances is strong enough to
outweigh it; that is to say, because one at least of the established "limiting principles" comes
into play.12

As stated in the above principal, the right to Privacy under article 21, is not an absolute right.
It has certain limitations, most important being public interest. In the case concerned, this factor
surely outweighs the right. The issue falls under the ambit of public Interest13. Ms Tiktikki
being the solicitor general of India had a certain level of duty towards her post and the country.
The broadcast shown by the media houses clearly showed us the kind of extravagant lifestyle
she was leading. The uncanny part of the situation is that despite being a government official,
she is able to afford this kind of a lifestyle. Authentically, government officials are not paid as
generously as private sector employees. Ms Tiktikki enjoyed amenities as “jacuzzi bathtubs,
indoor swimming pool, rare breed dogs, expensive paintings, exquisite collection of wine and
whiskey”. A usual public official has an average monthly income with basic amenities provided

11
Justice K.S Puttaswamy and Ors. Vs. Union of India ( UOI) and Ors. ,MANU/SC/1044/2017.
12
Id.
13
Subhash Chandra Agarwal Vs. Supreme Court Of India and Others , 2015 SCC online SC 1537.

16
to them. On the other hand, in Ms Tiktikki’s case, her flamboyant way of living certainly raises
some eyebrows in the society.
Displaying this unseen side of the story to the public is very important for them to formulate
an unbiased viewpoint. A democracy is by the people, for the people and of the people. Public
forms an integral part of the society. It is very important to keep some level of transparency in
the governing system & for restoring the faith of our public in the justice system of the country.

17
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preventive injunction restraining the defendants
from publishing any content related to the investigation of Mr. Totapuri’s death, or
otherwise containing any material which may portray the plaintiff in a bad light and
prejudice the ongoing investigations against her.

3.1 Whether there was any irreparable injury.

An injunction is an order of a court restraining the commission, repetition, or continuance, of

a wrongful act of the defendant. To entitle a party to an injunction he must prove either damage
or apprehended damage. The apprehended damage must involve imminent danger of a
substantial kind or injury that will be irreparable 14

Elaborating on this, injunction is provided when if the temporary injunction is not granted the
petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss.
In the above case, Ms Tiktikki took her own decision to step down from the position of the
solicitor general of India. There was certainly no compulsion or professional pressure from the
government. The decision wasn’t imposed on her. This clearly shows that her post would’ve
been protected if she hadn’t taken the decision to step down.
Her resignation was her own personal choice and was avoidable.

3.2 Whether there was any other relief available to her.

When the defence justification of truth or qualified privilege is prima facie made out,
interlocutory injunction is not granted 15
According to the High court of Australia , for grant of an interlocutory injunction it must be
held that there is a serious question to be decided, that damages will not be an adequate remedy
for injury suffered and that balance of convenience lies for grant of injunction 16
The party must show there is no other remedy available. If plaintiff is seeking multiple
remedies , the element of urgency of injunction is ruled out.

14
RATANLAL supra note 5,at 233
15
RAMASWAMY IYER, THE LAW OF TORTS 423(, 10 TH ED OF 2007)
16
RATANLAL supra note 6,at 320. ; Australian Broadcasting Cooperation v. O Neil, (2006) ALJR 671

18
Ms Tiktikki is seeking multiple reliefs and has listed down preventive injunction as her last
resort. Preventive injunction is only provided in cases where all the possible remedies run out
or are in any way inadequate. This is reflected in this particular case where other reliefs are
veryevidentlyavailable.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation or damages, to be payable jointly

or severally by the defendants, for defaming the plaintiff, and if so to what extent.

It has been held by the court of appeal in England that where the defense of qualified privilege
may lie in an action for libel, there is no rule of law that the malice of the master or principal
is to be imputed to the servant or agent, so as to render him liable for innocent publication of
the defamatory matter. In such a case in a joint publication the malice of one of the defendants
cannot be imputed to another. If several persons are libeled by the publication of a statement
all of them cannot bring joint action against the defendant but must sue him separately.17
In this, because of the laxity of malice, the blame on one’s actions cannot be imputed on other
defendants and hence the defendants, in this case the news channels are liable individually.
In addition to this, even if defamation is proved, the compensation or damages should be
reasonable and proportionate to the alleged injury suffered by the plaintiff.

17
RATANLAL supra 8, at 321

19
 PRAYER

______________________________________________________________________

Wherefore in the light of questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
respondent’s ABC and ors. request the honorable high court to adjudge and declare that:

(a) The defendants cannot be held liable for the statements which are allegedly defamatory in
nature.
(b) The defendants have not infringed with the plaintiff’s privacy, which is guaranteed under
article 21 of constitution and hence cannot be held liable.
(c) The defendants don’t owe “an ascertained amount” to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is
not entitled to the compensation or damages
(d) The plaintiff is not entitled to preventive injunction restraining defendants from publishing
any content related to the investigation of Mr. Totapuri’s death or any other material which
may turn the course of the ongoing investigations against her.

In the respectful submission before the Honorable High court of Purva Pradesh,
Counsel on behalf of ABC news and Ors.

20
21
22